How do judges normally treat destruction of evidence? Do they not care who committed the crime and just make a ruling on how to infer it? I feel like the court would want to know who has committed something as serious as this but I’m not sure of the actual process for it.
I don’t think it’s literally a search and replace but a part of the prompt that is hidden from the user and inserted either before or after the user’s prompt. Something like [all humans, unless stated otherwise, should be ethnically ambiguous]. Then when generating it’s got confused and taken it as he should be named ethnically ambiguous.
How many times have they “banned” vapes now? Are they actually going to do it?
We want to make sure the increasing use of digital payments occurs in a way that helps promote greater competition, innovation and productivity across our entire economy.
If we are to take this stated goal at face value it would seem to be a good thing. Getting ahead of the curve before the tech giants find a way to turn these products against us.
The problem is a lot of Australian’s will not take this at face value especially in the current climate of the movement away from physical cash. It’s hard to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing this to protect the Australian people with the lack of any sort of harm or complaint. Feel free to point out if there’s something I’m not thinking about regarding this point.
Personally, this smells extremely fishy to me and the most likely explanation in my mind is that they want to kneecap the tech giants and allow our financial sector to push in this space. I can’t imagine CBA, ANZ, etc particularly enjoying their control over this space being eroded. They have every opportunity to innovate in the space but they’re clearly lacking the drive to do so. Instead of improving competition by forcing the big banks to step up, they’re knee capping actual innovation.
So much of our economy is export driven. Particularly to China and particularly coal. Sad.
Agreed and I made a similar point in a few of my other comments. If you look at the original context it was more of a “well you have to abide by the rules and the dogs should be quarantined but if you’re not willing to do that then we would have no other option”.
The very next sentence says:
The analogy breaks down in the “admit fault” side of things because the cop can ticket you anyway
And the same in the US except with ever larger fines than AU https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/agricultural-items
They do “random searches” just like any other country but I find it more likely in this situation that they saw something on the scanner which prompted them to search the bag. Even if you compare the process to the USA it’s pretty much identical. You still have to declare everything except the USA has even steeper fines than Australia.
They were never really going to kill the dogs. The full context was along the lines of “well you can do the right thing, or we will have no choice but to…”. I’m not aware of any cases where they’ve actually euthanised a pet, famous or no. It’s an absolute last resort as they would rather just quarantine them. But yeah, pretty funny and a win for the government.
Which model do you have? Mine doesn’t have a “home screen”. It turns on to the last used input. There is a bar that pops up from the bottom with all the apps on it and that opens when you turn it on. Honestly I didn’t realise how different the UI may be across different models.
And the same applies! You have to be declared. If you try and smuggle a human in there’s probably steep fines associated if you’re caught.
Here’s a short news story about it with some additional context https://youtu.be/4a7ExWd698w
Here’s the original clip https://youtu.be/Q2BDtdkyxFk
If you search Johnny Depp hostage video you will find it. We don’t talk about she who must not be named.
I think it was more about sending a message. In a way yes because he is famous, but in the way that they wanted to leverage that as a deterrence. It wasn’t about “letting him off the hook”. It was about using him as a platform to say to the world “we do not fuck around when it comes to this”. If you’ve seen the hostage video you know what I mean 🤣
They found it after they went through her backpack.
Extra info: if you declare everything, even if it’s something that’s definitely not allowed, you will not get into any trouble. I’m talking about food and stuff not drugs or guns. They just don’t want people to not be declaring things that then slip through without inspection. That’s why there’s a heavy fine if they have to “catch” you. A lot of things are okay’d to be brought in after inspection.
And what I got from other commenters is that their countries hate pieces of gum and shrivelled blackened oranges. It’s not unique to Australia although as an island nation especially prone to biosecurity threats we do have a reputation for taking it more seriously. It’s not a difficult thing to get caught with if you’re paying any sort of attention. You can make mistakes and accidentally (or even purposefully) bring stuff in as long as you own up to it. There’s signage everywhere explaining in words and pictures what is and is not allowed. The custom agents ask you. There’s literally every chance to declare.
It’s not as harsh as it sounds, it’s only when you get caught that it becomes a big deal. It’s like if you got pulled up by the cops. If you try and lie or simply don’t even recognise that you were speeding you’ll probably get a ticket. The analogy breaks down in the “admit fault” side of things because the cop can ticket you anyway, where under our biosecurity law you cannot be punished for declaring goods that would not be allowed in.
Could it have something to do with it being Chinese state media? I’m not aware of any ad blocker that is that overzealous but it might be a possibility?
Perhaps anyone listening to the plane announcements, looks at any one of the multitude of signs on arrival, or anyone (everyone) who fills out the incoming passenger card? It’s not at all unclear what you have to do when you’re there. They make it clear to declare everything at multiple points. There is no penalty for declaring something even if it’s not allowed in.
On the first side of the incoming passenger card, half of it is taken up by the question:
Are you bringing into Australia:
[…]
Meat, poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy, fruit, vegetables?
Grains, seeds, bulbs, straw, nuts, plants, parts of plants, traditional medicines or herbs, wooden articles?
Animals, parts of animals, animal products including equipment, pet food, eggs, biologicals, specimens, birds, fish, insects, shells, bee products?
Great, then declare it and there shouldn’t be any problem. Where the problem comes in is people not declaring it. If it’s hidden somewhere in their luggage or on their person how is anyone supposed to know that?
Granted it is harsh in this case which I already said but customs has no interest in letting people skirt the rules just because.
You could download a terminal app (termux from f-droid) and run
ls > file.txt. You would first want tocd(change directory) to the location you’re interested in. This will generate afile.txtwith the output ofls(list files command).